Some friends of mine host Movie Night every Monday evening: whoever wants to show up is welcome, there's a potluck dinner at 7 and the movie starts around 7:30. The movies are arranged in series; whoever is hosting the series picks out maybe half a dozen movies to show, centered around a theme of their choosing. There's usually some informal discussion after the movie.

Well, the current theme is Belief. So far, we've watched Mad Max 2, What the Bleep Do We Know?, and Triumph of the Will. Next week is a movie about the Ramones (not sure which one) and then The Passion of the Christ. I never miss Movie Night, but I'm seriously considering staying home for Passion. I've heard nothing but bad things about it, but I'd still be interested in watching it in the same observatory way I watched Triumph of the Will, if it weren't for what I've heard about the movie's violence. I won't watch Braveheart again for the same reason (what is it with Gibson and the violence?). On the other hand, I could always close my eyes or leave the room during the worst parts, and I always look forward to movie night, and I'm sure there will be a great discussion after Passion. So tell me, are there redeeming qualities to Passion, or is it really one long propogandistic gorefest?

Some friends of mine host Movie Night every Monday evening: whoever wants to show up is welcome, there's a potluck dinner at 7 and the movie starts around 7:30. The movies are arranged in series; whoever is hosting the series picks out maybe half a dozen movies to show, centered around a theme of their choosing. There's usually some informal discussion after the movie.

Well, the current theme is Belief. So far, we've watched Mad Max 2, What the Bleep Do We Know?, and Triumph of the Will. Next week is a movie about the Ramones (not sure which one) and then The Passion of the Christ. I never miss Movie Night, but I'm seriously considering staying home for Passion. I've heard nothing but bad things about it, but I'd still be interested in watching it in the same observatory way I watched Triumph of the Will, if it weren't for what I've heard about the movie's violence. I won't watch Braveheart again for the same reason (what is it with Gibson and the violence?). On the other hand, I could always close my eyes or leave the room during the worst parts, and I always look forward to movie night, and I'm sure there will be a great discussion after Passion. So tell me, are there redeeming qualities to Passion, or is it really one long propogandistic gorefest?

It's extremely gory, for sure. If it wasn't for the gore, I'd have walked away from it because it was way too long as far as I was concerned. The gore aspects...hmmm...extremely brutal. Some people can't take that kind of relentless visual beating. My husband had a very difficult time with how brutal it was. And he's a guy who prefers that every movie have at least 8 quality kills.

It's nothing but violence. Gibson had to invent acts of violence that are not mentioned in any gospel or in Judeo/Roman history just to satisfy his religious bloodlust.

I'm a big fan of horror movies. Including the hugest gorefests imaginable, but never have I seen graphic acts of torture displayed in just gleeful graphic detail for such a long period of time. And what's worse, this is all in sadistic realism presented with grim resolve, not the cartoonish bucket of bloods approach.

There's no discussion of Jesus' teachings. There's a little character work with Peter, Herod, and Judas, but it's all sideshow to the grand guginol of Jesus being whipped over and over again. The cinematography is pretty good, it's a pity what they shot was so despicable.

If you want to leave during the scenes of graphic violence, bring a book. You won't be atching this film.

In some ways it's a pretty good film. It's shot well, and the acting is decent. I wish that Gibson had stood his ground on not wanting subtitles, but perhaps on DVD those can be turned off.

What I didn't like about it was how ridiculously cartoony it got. It almost started to look like The Passion of Daffy Duck. I was laughing my ass off at how accident-prone the main character was. Yes, I know there's nothing very funny about an old lady slipping on a banana peel either, but sometimes you just gotta laugh anyway.

Oh, and the ending sucked. It would have been a much better movie if the last two scenes were omitted.

It's nothing but violence. Gibson had to invent acts of violence that are not mentioned in any gospel or in Judeo/Roman history just to satisfy his religious bloodlust.

I'm a big fan of horror movies. Including the hugest gorefests imaginable, but never have I seen graphic acts of torture displayed in just gleeful graphic detail for such a long period of time. And what's worse, this is all in sadistic realism presented with grim resolve, not the cartoonish bucket of bloods approach.

There's no discussion of Jesus' teachings. There's a little character work with Peter, Herod, and Judas, but it's all sideshow to the grand guginol of Jesus being whipped over and over again. The cinematography is pretty good, it's a pity what they shot was so despicable.

If you want to leave during the scenes of graphic violence, bring a book. You won't be atching this film.

My understanding is that it wasn't supposed to be about his teachings. It was supposed to be about the last few hours of his life, which weren't exactly a picnic if the film is to be believed.

My understanding is that it wasn't supposed to be about his teachings. It was supposed to be about the last few hours of his life, which weren't exactly a picnic if the film is to be believed.

It was supposed to be a "You Are There" sort of thing. Which I think is a brilliant idea. Gibson's original plan of having no subtitles was a stroke of genius. Too bad he caved on that. But to me where this movie fell down (repeatedly, and on shark pointy rocks) was the inclusion of all the supernatural stuff. And all of the editorializing. And the extra violence that just went into gratuitous territory. Had Gibson stuck with a plain old "You Are There" format, this could have been a brilliant film.

It is gruesome. Crucifixion was not a humane execution. It was specifically designed to prolong death and humiliate the victim. You can question his choice of subject matter, but I think Gibson handled the topic appropriately. In for a penny, in for a pound.

I grew up Catholic so the film resonated with me as it was a vivid depiction of stories I am very familiar with. It is pretty much verbatim from the Gospels and "realistic" in its depiction of the events described therein (apart from a few unnecessary artistic flourishes such as Satan suckling Mini-me). If you're interested in being a fly on the wall at Jesus' execution, then watch it - but you will be struggling to keep your lunch down at some points.

It's a medieval Passion play, filmed with modern cinematic realism, so I guess it's not surprising that the brutality is at a level I can only describe as pornographic.

Personally, I would have liked it if the last scene had shown the tomb being opened several weeks later -- to reveal Jesus' rotting corpse. Instead we get this bullshit resurrection that somehow makes everything all right.

I'm an atheist and I think Mel Gibson's bonkers with a serious slant toward "total horse's ass", but I liked the movie. It is definitely gory, it is definitely odd, and has some elements I don't like (Herod Antipas as fey if not gay, the devil as a supposedly androgynous but most definitely played by a woman actor, the grotesque O'Connor like imagery) but it's an extremely interesting film and at times very well done. (The scene of Christ falling and Mary having a flashback to his childhood was, I thought, a brilliant and moving addition.)

I did not see the anti-Semitism that was raved about (the Jewish priests are the villains, but they were in the Gospels as well). I went prepared to dislike it and emerged thinking it was good filmmaking.

One particularly gruesome form of impalement involved being forced to stand over a wide stake which was just tall enough that it penetrated the victim's rectum deeply. This left them unable to remove themselves, or to sit. As their legs tired, they would slowly sink onto the stake, which eventually would cause mortal damage, but only over the course of hours, or even days.

I was very, very disappointed in this movie. I usually like MG's films, but this one was just gore and nothing more. It didn't add anything to the tale. A much better film is The Last Temptation of Christ. Oh, in case you don't see it but are curious about the ending:

I'd say watch the movie, if only to know what everyone is talking about.

I'm Christian(Episcopalian). Once has so far been enough for me with this film. But as another poster has said, it put him in mind of what Christ did go through for us.

I liked the flashbacks, such as Mary's memories of Jesus as a little boy, or when he was adult and building a table. But watch out for the flashbacks, because after each one the violence seems to ratchet up again.

The different languages were cool. I did notice when Mary was calling for Peter it sounded like KAY-fa, which was Aramaic I suppose for Cephas, one of Peter's original names.

The scene where Pilate's wife brings fine linen cloth to Mary, and the looks in the eyes of both women , was quite moving, no words necessary.

It's a disturbing film I grant you. When I saw it it was with a large group of people from my church. We weren't the whole theater, but maybe at least a third of it. Next Sunday all anyone could talk about when first discussing the film was when we left the theater. There had been a heavy rainstorm(we hadn't heard it) and in the east there was one of the most brilliant, vivid rainbows I have ever seen. It kind of lifted our spirits.

Personally, I would have liked it if the last scene had shown the tomb being opened several weeks later -- to reveal Jesus' rotting corpse. Instead we get this bullshit resurrection that somehow makes everything all right.

You might disagree with the story, but that's how it goes (I'm not saying whether the story is true or not, I'm simply saying that is how the story ends).

Just to bring my youthful Catholic upbringing into synch with todays world, I watched the crucifixion scene with tears in my eyes. The camera panned down to the ‘Crown of Thorns’ lying in the dirt. The camera held that shot for more than a few seconds. To prove that I am definitely going straight to Hell..I was thinking..E-Bay!

I'm the most die-hard atheist around, but a big chunk of my diss dealt with the Passion as a subject in art and drama in the late Middle Ages so I excused myself for a moment and watched it. It's a very good modern version of a Passion play, with all that entails (cough cough violenceandjewbaiting cough). For what its worth, it has little to do with the Bible (what is Biblical is clearly John, with all that that entails. . .) and much to do with medieval and post-medieval legend and popular belief. It's a well-done, visually striking movie, and I can see why a lot of Christians like it very very much. But it is TOTALLY 15th-century-- relates very very closely to German Passion tracts. It's worth seeing.

I think Passion was a disgusting, masturbatory blood-feast. I don't think it is worth seeing in any way, and I'm appalled that it was so popular and that busloads of church congregations went to go see it just because it was a movie about Jesus.

I guess I'm in the minority: I really liked it- and not because of it's religious message; I simply thought it was a good film. I loved the languages, costumes, sets- just fun stuff all around. And the Satan character looked really nifty, too.

But then, I didn't really think the film was all that gory either, so there ya go.

I'm an atheist, and I enjoyed the film. It has its flaws, certainly, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's gory, but not that gory.

The major problem I had while seeing this in the theatre was that I was surrounded by old people. The smell of Ben-Gay was alarmingly thick. I was the only one in the theatre who didn't remember the Eisenhower administration, I think. (Well, ok, most of them probably didn't remember it either. But I mean that I was the only one now alive then.) Plus, they never shut up. Seriously. It was almost, but not quite, as bad as being surrounded by 14-year-old girls. Except without the cellphones and omigods. It was always, "Oh dear, me. He really suffered!" Or, "Is that one Judas? I think that one's Judas. But the other guy, he might be Judas. Which one is Judas?" And there was crying.

I think Passion was a disgusting, masturbatory blood-feast. I don't think it is worth seeing in any way, and I'm appalled that it was so popular and that busloads of church congregations went to go see it just because it was a movie about Jesus.

I was subjected to considerable peer-pressure by folks in my church, which is deeply ironice, since peer pressure (and violence in movies) is something they would normally strenuously oppose. I still haven't seen it and I don't intend to.

Argent Towers is spot on, IMO. If you're concerned about the violence and think you'll just close your eyes during those parts, you'll have them closed for nearly all of the movie.

It's far more violent than Braveheart ever thought about being. And it's of a different quality: with Braveheart, there were men fighting other men for ideas they believed in. With PotC, the violence goes on for so long, and is so lovingly filmed, if you lose sight of the Christian meanings that the story is trying to portray, you really start to wonder about the sadism of the director. And for me, the violence was too much - it made me mose sight of the Christian meaning I was supposed to get.

I realize I'm a PollyAnna and perhaps put too much stock in the idea that people are basically good, but I have a hard time believing that Roman executioners and torturers would be so sadistic.

Braveheart style violance is about as much as I can take and yes I did cover my eyes for some parts there.

Thus I will not ever see this movie. I am a very visual person and tend to have nightmares weeks or months afterwards that incorporate the most scariest of the gore. I don't need more gore shots in my mental library to heighten the frights.

What strange timing. I just watched this movie for the first time last night. It left me with a big "meh". The bloodiness left me sickened and there was so much violence that is nowhere in the bible, I guess to drive home the point that Jesus really suffered a whole big bunch. I thought the acting, especially in the beginning, was overly dramatic.

Personally, I would have liked it if the last scene had shown the tomb being opened several weeks later -- to reveal Jesus' rotting corpse. Instead we get this bullshit resurrection that somehow makes everything all right.

---------------------

You might disagree with the story, but that's how it goes (I'm not saying whether the story is true or not, I'm simply saying that is how the story ends).

I know, but it's a public-domain story; you can do anything you want with it. An unexpected twist would have been a relief.

furt:

Quote:

I thought is was an excellent movie. It is very violent, but I think a lot of the descriptions here are exagerrations.

Exaggerations. I don't think so. The brutality in the movie is as realistic as possible, and committed systematically, slowly, in cold blood. Jesus is beaten, kicked and scourged for what seemed like about twenty minutes, until he's good and bloody. Then there's a pause, and you might think he's done and they're going to take him back in front of Pilate; but no. Now they bring out the serious scourge, the one with iron hooks, and go to work all over again. Instead of just leaving bloody stripes, the hooks seem to be ripping pieces of flesh off his back. Occasionally a hook will be embedded in the flesh and have to be jerked out with a sharp tug on the whip. This goes on until the entire back of his body looks like bloody steak. Then there's another pause, and you might think that finally they're through. But no; they turn him over so they can do the other side.

For me, the most excruciating moment was when they were nailing him up; the cross looks like a standardized product, with pre-drilled nail holes. They've already pounded an iron spike through one hand, but now his armspan isn't quite long enough for his other hand to reach the other nail hole. So they just haul on the rope around his wrist until both his shoulders dislocate and they can nail his remaining hand using the pre-drilled hole. This is filmed lovingly, so that you can almost feel your arms being pulled out.

Great film for what it intended to be- a corrective to the over-sanitary crucifixions of former Jesus movies. A lot of hate has been flung around here unfairly.

However, it may well not be your cup of tea. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a great film also, but I have female friends I would never expect to watch it.

If you'd like to have a Movie Night later which will raise similar issues as PASSION, ask that another Jesus movie be scheduled- for example, pair LAST TEMPTATION with the original silent KING OF KINGS for a wide historical range of Jesus Cinema.

For me, the most excruciating moment was when they were nailing him up; the cross looks like a standardized product, with pre-drilled nail holes. They've already pounded an iron spike through one hand, but now his armspan isn't quite long enough for his other hand to reach the other nail hole. So they just haul on the rope around his wrist until both his shoulders dislocate and they can nail his remaining hand using the pre-drilled hole. This is filmed lovingly, so that you can almost feel your arms being pulled out.

From your description, I cannot doubt that it is filmed lovingly; I'm just a little confused/concerned as to loving what?

I found it very moving; but I would not expect someone who does not share my faith to have the same reaction. Naturally, it is violent; but without the religious context it is worse than that -- pointless violence.

Not every detail of the film is in the bible (although the most violent episodes are - the beating, scourging, and nailing). But the other details are taken from centuries old Catholic tradition - Gibson didn't just make stuff up to satisfy his bloodlust. It's true that he didn't pull back, that's for sure.

As usual I agree with FriarTed's comments. I would also add that I found it deeply moving, beautifully made, and very difficult to watch. I am very glad I saw it the first time, but it may be a long time before I want to see it again.

It is fantastically gory, but I thought it has excellent production values, tried its best to accurately depict the time in which it took place, and was shot extremely well.

Even if you're not a Christian, I think it can serve as an example of man's inhumanity to man, since even many non-Christians believe that Jesus was a good guy who was unjustly killed in a savage manner (yes, I know others believe the whole thing is made up; that's for a different thread).

The only change I would have made (as if I would ever embark upon such a project) would have been to end the film with the pietà, which is also perhaps the most beautiful shot of the movie. That marks the real end of the Passion. The Resurrection is not considered part of it and shouldn't have been included.

I watched it with my dad last Christmas. It was very gory and very sad. For the first time I thought about what it woud've been like to be Mary (Mother) and watching your child go through all of this. As a christian I believe in what the gospel preaches, I just had never thought about it as a mom before.

I cried.

I will never watch it again. They showed the main crucifixion scene in my church last Easter and I closed my eyes during most of it.

I think it's a very disturbing movie, but I think it's a very important movie.